Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-53 and ISSUE-72 adopting sh:qualifiedValueShape

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-07-28 15:14-0700]
> As far as I can tell, the example in ISSUE-53 is covered by sh:hasValue.  What
> was missing was a corresponding "exists property value in class" construct,
> which is covered by QCRs.

Just as a warning to the pedantic, QCRs is a loose description of what
ShEx does with repeated property constraints. The actual behavior is
more like n QCRs and another allValuesFrom on the union.


> peter
> 
> On 07/27/2015 05:07 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> > If I understand Jose's intention correctly, ISSUE-53 [1] was about making sure
> > that the same property can show up in multiple places at the same shape. This
> > is already syntactically supported. However the main use case of this appears
> > to be Qualified Cardinality Restrictions which are also captured as ISSUE-72.
> > My proposal is to close both by adopting the current draft in the reference
> > guide (and Turtle file):
> > 
> > http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/#AbstractQualifiedValueShapePropertyConstraint
> > 
> > 
> > An example test case of this can be found here:
> > 
> > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features/core/qualifiedValueShape-001.ttl
> > 
> > 
> > Holger
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/53
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/72
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 23:59:26 UTC